Re: [HACKERS] v10 pg_ctl compatibility

Hi, On 2017-09-26 11:59:42 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: > Should the release notes have a compatibility entry about pg_ctl restart, > being used against a running pre-10 server, no longer being able to detect > when startup is complete? > > I don't know if cross-version use of pg_ctl restart was

[HACKERS] User-perspective knowledge about wait events

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 11:58 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > As $subject has been touched on two threads recently > (https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqTbHLcHFn6m11tfpwAdgz8BmnBza2jjN9AK=sdx_kb...@mail.gmail.com > and >

Re: [HACKERS] Row Level Security Documentation

On 26 September 2017 at 00:42, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rash...@gmail.com) wrote: >> Attached is a proposed patch... > > I've taken a look through this and generally agree with it. Thanks for looking at this. > the bits inside ... tags should be >

Re: [HACKERS] v10 pg_ctl compatibility

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-09-26 11:59:42 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: >> I don't know if cross-version use of pg_ctl restart was ever officially >> supported, but the current behavior is rather confusing (waiting for a long >> time, and then reporting failure, even though it

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?

Andrew Dunstan writes: > On 09/26/2017 02:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> ... and the buildfarm's not too happy. It looks like force_parallel_mode >> breaks all the regression test cases around unsafe enums; which on >> reflection is unsurprising, because parallel

Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Make the optimiser aware of partitions ordering

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Julien Rouhaud wrote: >> That's true, but numCols, sortColdIdx etc are also used to display the >> sort key in an explain. If an append can return sorted data, it >>

Re: [HACKERS] Row Level Security Documentation

Dean, * Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rash...@gmail.com) wrote: > On 26 September 2017 at 00:42, Stephen Frost wrote: > > That's a relatively minor point, however, and I do feel that this patch > > is a definite improvement. Were you thinking of just applying this for > > v10, or

Re: [HACKERS][BUG] Cache invalidation for queries that contains const of temporary composite type

25.09.17 20:50, Maksim Milyutin wrote: I have found out the problem when try to sequentially call the function that casts constant to composite type of temporary table that is deleted ateach transaction termination (i.e. at each function call completion). For example, we have the following

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?

On 09/26/2017 02:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: >> Pushed; sorry for the delay. > ... and the buildfarm's not too happy. It looks like force_parallel_mode > breaks all the regression test cases around unsafe enums; which on > reflection is unsurprising, because parallel workers will not have

[HACKERS] Re: Patch to address concerns about ICU collcollate stability in v10 (Was: CREATE COLLATION does not sanitize ICU's BCP 47 language tags. Should it?)

On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 9:24 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > * Documents the aforementioned keyword collation attribute restriction > on ICU versions before ICU 54. This was needed anyway. We only claim > for Postgres collations what the ICU docs claim for ICU collators, > even though

Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands

On 9/25/17, 12:42 AM, "Michael Paquier" wrote: > + if (!IsAutoVacuumWorkerProcess()) > + ereport(WARNING, > + (errmsg("skipping \"%s\" --- relation no longer exists", > + relation->relname))); > I like the use of

[HACKERS] v10 pg_ctl compatibility

Should the release notes have a compatibility entry about pg_ctl restart, being used against a running pre-10 server, no longer being able to detect when startup is complete? I don't know if cross-version use of pg_ctl restart was ever officially supported, but the current behavior is rather

Re: [HACKERS] Server crash due to SIGBUS(Bus Error) when trying to access the memory created using dsm_create().

Thomas Munro writes: > See attached, which also removes the ENOSYS stuff which I believe to > be now useless. Does this make sense? Survives make check-world and > my simple test procedure on a 3.10.0-327.36.1.el7.x86_64 system. Thanks. Works on my RHEL6 box

Re: [HACKERS] v10 pg_ctl compatibility

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2017-09-26 11:59:42 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: > > Should the release notes have a compatibility entry about pg_ctl restart, > > being used against a running pre-10 server, no longer being able to > detect > >

Re: [HACKERS] v10 pg_ctl compatibility

Jeff Janes writes: > To add insult to injury, when v10 pg_ctl does restart a pre-10 server and > it sits there for a long time waiting for it to start up even though it has > already started up, if I hit ctrl-C because I assume something is horribly > wrong, it then goes

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?

I wrote: > Pushed; sorry for the delay. ... and the buildfarm's not too happy. It looks like force_parallel_mode breaks all the regression test cases around unsafe enums; which on reflection is unsurprising, because parallel workers will not have access to the parent's blacklist hash, so they

Re: [HACKERS] v10 pg_ctl compatibility

On 2017-09-26 15:40:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I'm not really feeling the need to insert a version check though. It's only a mild preference here. > Also, what would you check exactly? Inquiring into what > "postgres --version" returns is not very conclusive about what is > actually running

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 04:07:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan writes: > > On 09/26/2017 02:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> ... and the buildfarm's not too happy. It looks like force_parallel_mode > >> breaks all the regression test cases around unsafe

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?

On 09/26/2017 05:45 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > I've not been following along very closely- are we sure that ripping > this out won't be worse than dealing with it in-place? Will pulling it > out also require a post-RC1 catversion bump? > > It shouldn't do AFAIK - the function signatures

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication - test_decoding - unchanged-toast-datum

2017-09-26 1:11 GMT-03:00 Abhinav Singh : > 5. On the target, when I do a select * and see that the column with > character varying() datatype has changed to 'unchanged-toast-datum'. > The column "is_toast" didn't change its value to "unchanged-toast-datum". It is just a

Re: [HACKERS] v10 pg_ctl compatibility

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Jeff Janes writes: > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Really? The server should have detached itself from your terminal > >> group long before that. What

Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On 25 September 2017 at 23:04, Amit Langote wrote: > By the way, I'm now rebasing these patches on top of [1] and will try to > merge your refactoring patch in some appropriate way. Will post more > tomorrow. > > [1]

Re: [HACKERS] v10 pg_ctl compatibility

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Jeff Janes writes: > > To add insult to injury, when v10 pg_ctl does restart a pre-10 server and > > it sits there for a long time waiting for it to start up even though it > has > > already started up,

Re: [HACKERS] v10 pg_ctl compatibility

On 2017-09-26 15:15:39 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Jeff Janes writes: > > > To add insult to injury, when v10 pg_ctl does restart a pre-10 server and > > > it sits there for a long time waiting for

Re: [HACKERS] md5 still listed as an option in pg_hba.conf.sample

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 2:41 AM, Mark Dilger wrote: > I was under the impression that md5 was removed for this release, per other > threads that I must not have followed closely enough. md5 is still present, its configuration in pg_hba.conf and password_encryption are

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?

Andrew Dunstan writes: > I'm not happy about the idea of marking an input function as not > parallel safe, certainly not without a good deal of thought and > discussion that we don't have time for this cycle. Yeah, that aspect of it was bothering me too: it's easy

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?

Tom, all, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 04:07:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Any other votes out there? > > > Well, I was concerned yesterday that we had a broken build farm so close > > to release. (I got

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 05:32:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 04:07:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Any other votes out there? > > > Well, I was concerned yesterday that we had a broken build farm so close > > to release. (I got

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?

On 09/26/2017 06:04 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 09/26/2017 05:45 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> I've not been following along very closely- are we sure that ripping >> this out won't be worse than dealing with it in-place? Will pulling it >> out also require a post-RC1 catversion bump? >> >>

Re: [HACKERS] v10 pg_ctl compatibility

Jeff Janes writes: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Really? The server should have detached itself from your terminal >> group long before that. What platform is this? > CentOS release 6.9 (Final) Hm, same as here. Are you

Re: [HACKERS] v10 pg_ctl compatibility

On 2017-09-26 18:54:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Jeff Janes writes: > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Really? The server should have detached itself from your terminal > >> group long before that. What platform is this? > > >

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?

Bruce Momjian writes: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 04:07:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Any other votes out there? > Well, I was concerned yesterday that we had a broken build farm so close > to release. (I got consistent regression failures.) I think PG 11 would > be better for

[HACKERS] Multicolumn hash indexes

Hi. I've noticed that hash indexes can't currently (in PG10) be multicolumn. Are they technically hard to implement or just nobody took such a feature? I think multicolumn hash indexes should help pretty significantly with queries like: - where username=? and user_post_id=? - where

Re: [HACKERS] v10 pg_ctl compatibility

Jeff Janes writes: > I was not using -l. Instead I set logging_collector=on in postgresql.conf, > but I suppose that that is not sufficent? No, because initial stderr is still connected to whatever. > But I just retried with -l, and it still gets the fast shutdown. Hmph.

Re: [HACKERS] User-perspective knowledge about wait events

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Schneider wrote: > However I think that it would be immensely helpful to start gathering > knowledge somewhere on wait events from the user perspective. Listing > a few of the wait events which users will probably see most often > along

Re: [HACKERS] Multicolumn hash indexes

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Tomasz Ostrowski wrote: > I've noticed that hash indexes can't currently (in PG10) be multicolumn. Are > they technically hard to implement or just nobody took such a feature? > > I think multicolumn hash indexes should help pretty

Re: [HACKERS] Multicolumn hash indexes

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 7:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Tomasz Ostrowski writes: >> I've noticed that hash indexes can't currently (in PG10) be multicolumn. >> Are they technically hard to implement or just nobody took such a feature? > > It's not simple,

Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On 2017/09/27 1:51, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Jesper Pedersen > wrote: >> One could advocate (*cough*) that the hash partition patch [1] should be >> merged first in order to find other instances of where other CommitFest >> entries doesn't

[HACKERS] Use of RangeVar for partitioned tables in autovacuum

Hi all, I have been looking more closely at the problem in $subject, that I have mentioned a couple of times, like here: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cab7npqqa37oune_rjzpmwc4exqalx9f27-ma_-rsfl_3mj+...@mail.gmail.com As of HEAD, the RangeVar defined in calls of vacuum() is used for

Re: [HACKERS] Multicolumn hash indexes

Tomasz Ostrowski writes: > I've noticed that hash indexes can't currently (in PG10) be multicolumn. > Are they technically hard to implement or just nobody took such a feature? It's not simple, particularly not if you wish that the index would support queries specifying

Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

Hi David, On 2017/09/27 6:04, David Rowley wrote: > On 25 September 2017 at 23:04, Amit Langote > wrote: >> By the way, I'm now rebasing these patches on top of [1] and will try to >> merge your refactoring patch in some appropriate way. Will post more >>

[HACKERS] md5 still listed as an option in pg_hba.conf.sample

The comment that I think needs updating is: # METHOD can be "trust", "reject", "md5", "password", "scram-sha-256", # "gss", "sspi", "ident", "peer", "pam", "ldap", "radius" or "cert". The "md5" option no longer works, as discussed in other threads. mark -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing

Re: [HACKERS] md5 still listed as an option in pg_hba.conf.sample

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:23:55AM -0700, Mark Dilger wrote: > The comment that I think needs updating is: > > # METHOD can be "trust", "reject", "md5", "password", "scram-sha-256", > # "gss", "sspi", "ident", "peer", "pam", "ldap", "radius" or "cert". > > The "md5" option no longer works, as

Re: [HACKERS] Bug with pg_basebackup and 'shared' tablespace

El 13/09/17 a las 14:17, Pierre Ducroquet escribió: > + boolfirstfile = 1; You are still assigning 1 to a bool (which is not incorrect) instead of true or false as Michael mentioned before. P.D.: I didn't go though all the thread and patch in depth so will not comment further.

Re: [HACKERS] Built-in plugin for logical decoding output

It seems test_decoding.c could be easily changed to support JSON by using the built in PostgreSQL functions (json.c composite_to_json) to convert a Datum into SQL. It's use of OidOutputFunctionCall could be modified to emit arrays and composite types as JSON. This might be enough to enable

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?

I wrote: > Andrew Dunstan writes: >> OK, that seems to be the consensus. So let's apply the blacklist patch >> and then separately remove the 'created in the same transaction' test. >> We'll need to adjust the regression tests and docs accordingly. > Agreed. I'll

Re: [HACKERS] md5 still listed as an option in pg_hba.conf.sample

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Mark Dilger wrote: > The comment that I think needs updating is: > > # METHOD can be "trust", "reject", "md5", "password", "scram-sha-256", > # "gss", "sspi", "ident", "peer", "pam", "ldap", "radius" or "cert". > > The "md5" option no

Re: [HACKERS] md5 still listed as an option in pg_hba.conf.sample

> On Sep 26, 2017, at 10:36 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:23:55AM -0700, Mark Dilger wrote: >> The comment that I think needs updating is: >> >> # METHOD can be "trust", "reject", "md5", "password", "scram-sha-256", >> # "gss", "sspi", "ident",

Re: [HACKERS] Enhancements to passwordcheck

On 9/26/17, 2:38 AM, "Albe Laurenz" wrote: > Nathan Bossart wrote: passwordcheck.force_new_password >>> Does it mean a password different from the old one? +1. It could be >>> different from the last 3 passwords but we don't store a password >>> history.

Re: [HACKERS] Built-in plugin for logical decoding output

On 26/09/17 17:50, Craig Ringer wrote: On 26 September 2017 at 22:14, Magnus Hagander > wrote: On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Alvaro Hernandez > wrote:     But what about earlier

Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Jesper Pedersen wrote: > One could advocate (*cough*) that the hash partition patch [1] should be > merged first in order to find other instances of where other CommitFest > entries doesn't account for hash partitions at the moment in

[HACKERS] Logical Replication - test_decoding - unchanged-toast-datum

Hello, I am currently using PostgreSQL Community version 9.4.9 and then using this instance, I am doing logical replication(using replication slots). I have created the replication slots using the following query: SELECT xlog_position FROM pg_create_logical_replication_

Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/09/25 20:21, Dilip Kumar wrote: > I see. So, in the run-time pruning case, only the work of extracting > bounding values is deferred to execution time. Matching clauses with the > partition key still

Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

Hi Amit, On 09/15/2017 04:50 AM, Amit Langote wrote: On 2017/09/15 11:16, Amit Langote wrote: I will post rebased patches later today, although I think the overall design of the patch on the planner side of things is not quite there yet. Of course, your and others' feedback is greatly welcome.

Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Jesper Pedersen wrote: > Could you share your thoughts on the usage of PartitionAppendInfo's > min_datum_idx / max_datum_idx ? Especially in relation to hash partitions. This brings up something that I've kind of been thinking about.

Re: [HACKERS] Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 5:06 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Based on the review comment from Robert, I'm planning to do the big > change to the architecture of this patch so that a backend process > work together with a dedicated background worker that is responsible > for

Re: [HACKERS] Fix number skipping in to_number

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 07:52:19PM +0100, Oliver Ford wrote: > Thanks for your review. The issue is that Oracle throws errors on many > more input cases than Postgres does, so making it exactly like Oracle > could break a lot of existing users. E.g. to_number ('123,000', '999') > returns '123' on

Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On 09/26/2017 10:33 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Jesper Pedersen wrote: Could you share your thoughts on the usage of PartitionAppendInfo's min_datum_idx / max_datum_idx ? Especially in relation to hash partitions. This brings up

Re: [HACKERS] Built-in plugin for logical decoding output

On 26/09/17 12:57, Petr Jelinek wrote: On 26/09/17 09:26, Alvaro Hernandez wrote: On 26/09/17 10:03, Craig Ringer wrote: On 26 September 2017 at 14:08, Alvaro Hernandez > wrote: - If you stick to in-core plugins, then you need to support at

Re: [HACKERS] Built-in plugin for logical decoding output

On 26/09/17 10:55, Craig Ringer wrote: On 26 September 2017 at 15:26, Alvaro Hernandez > wrote:     That's better than nothing. But as much as interoperable json may be, people still need to talk the (binary) replication protocol to use

Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping

Hi Jeevan, I have started reviewing these patches. 0001 looks fine. There might be some changes that will be needed, but those will be clear when I review the patch that uses this refactoring. 0002 + * + * If targetlist is provided, we use it else use targetlist from the root. */ static

Re: [HACKERS] Page Scan Mode in Hash Index

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > I think your proposal makes sense. Your patch looks good but you > might want to tweak the comments atop _hash_kill_items ("However, > having pin on the overflow page doesn't guarantee that vacuum won't > delete any

Re: [HACKERS] Built-in plugin for logical decoding output

2017-09-26 2:46 GMT-03:00 Alvaro Hernandez : > I think that's awesome. Now... back to my original question: what is the > *list* of output plugins supported by managed PostgreSQL solutions? So far > it looks like wal2json for 9.5-9.6 on RDS, and nothing else (it may just be >

Re: [HACKERS] Built-in plugin for logical decoding output

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Alvaro Hernandez wrote: > > > On 26/09/17 12:57, Petr Jelinek wrote: > >> On 26/09/17 09:26, Alvaro Hernandez wrote: >> >>> On 26/09/17 10:03, Craig Ringer wrote: >>> On 26 September 2017 at 14:08, Alvaro Hernandez

Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Make the optimiser aware of partitions ordering

On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > That's true, but numCols, sortColdIdx etc are also used to display the > sort key in an explain. If an append can return sorted data, it > should also display the sort information, so I think these fields are > still

Re: [HACKERS] Improve catcache/syscache performance.

On 09/26/2017 06:41 AM, tushar wrote: On 09/22/2017 11:45 AM, Andres Freund wrote: Here's a variant that cleans up the previous changes a bit, and adds some further improvements: I tested with different pgbench options with  master v/s patch and found an improvement.  I have applied 001 and

Re: [HACKERS] Built-in plugin for logical decoding output

On 26 September 2017 at 22:14, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Alvaro Hernandez wrote: > >> >> >> >> But what about earlier versions? Any chance it could be backported >> down to 9.4? If that would be acceptable, I could

Re: [HACKERS] Repetitive code in RI triggers

> On 26 Sep 2017, at 10:51, Maksim Milyutin wrote: > > On 19.09.2017 11:09, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > >> Removing reviewer Maksim Milyutin from patch entry due to inactivity and >> community account email bouncing. Maksim: if you are indeed reviewing this >> patch, then

Re: [HACKERS] Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations

On 2017/09/26 11:14, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Amit Langote wrote: >> On 2017/09/26 9:51, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: Something like that looks like a good compromise for v10. I would rather see a

Re: [HACKERS] Built-in plugin for logical decoding output

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Alvaro Hernandez wrote: > > > On 25/09/17 22:13, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Alvaro Hernandez wrote: > >> >> >> On 25/09/17 20:18, Andres Freund wrote: >> >>> On 2017-09-24 13:36:56 +0300, Alvaro

Re: [HACKERS] Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 1:40 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: >> The remote transaction can be committed/aborted only after the fate of >> the local transaction is decided. If we commit remote

Re: [HACKERS] make async slave to wait for lsn to be replayed

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Ivan Kartyshov wrote: > How to use it > == > WAITLSN ‘LSN’ [, timeout in ms]; > WAITLSN_INFINITE ‘LSN’; > WAITLSN_NO_WAIT ‘LSN’; Adding suffix to the command name looks weird. We don't do so for any other command. I propose

Re: [HACKERS] Built-in plugin for logical decoding output

On 25/09/17 21:38, Andres Freund wrote: On 2017-09-25 21:31:11 +0300, Alvaro Hernandez wrote: - Distribution and testing are non-trivial: many OS/archs combinations. Yes, it is. Why would we want to increase that burden to this community?     That's a different story, and one I cannot

Re: [HACKERS] coverage analysis improvements

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Apparently, rmgr.c doesn't contain any instrumentable code. I don't see > this warning, but it might depend on tool versions and compiler options. Even on HEAD I am seeing the same problem, this is not

Re: [HACKERS] Setting pd_lower in GIN metapage

On 2017/09/26 11:34, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Amit Langote wrote: >> So, ISTM, comments that the patches add should all say that setting the >> meta pages' pd_lower to the correct value helps to pass those pages to >> xlog.c as compressible standard layout pages,

Re: [HACKERS] Setting pd_lower in GIN metapage

On 2017/09/26 16:30, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Amit Langote > wrote: >>> Except that small thing, the patches do their duty. >> >> Thanks, revised patches attached. > > Cool, let's switch it back to a ready for committer status then.

Re: [HACKERS] Repetitive code in RI triggers

On 19.09.2017 11:09, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: Removing reviewer Maksim Milyutin from patch entry due to inactivity and community account email bouncing. Maksim: if you are indeed reviewing this patch, then please update the community account and re-add to the patch entry. cheers ./daniel

Re: [HACKERS] Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations

On 2017/09/26 11:12, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> I think that's right, although, I don't see any new RangeVar created under >> vacuum() at the moment. Maybe, you're referring to the Nathan's patch >> that

Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On 2017/09/25 20:21, Dilip Kumar wrote: > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Amit Langote > wrote: > >> Thanks for looking at the patches and the comments. > >> It's not clear to me whether get_rel_partitions() itself, as it is, is >> callable from outside the

Re: [HACKERS] Built-in plugin for logical decoding output

On 26/09/17 10:03, Craig Ringer wrote: On 26 September 2017 at 14:08, Alvaro Hernandez > wrote:     OK, let me try to do that. I believe data integration is a priority. Definitely agree so far. - If you want to develop your own output

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 6:57 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Haribabu Kommi > wrote: > > After I tune the GUC to go with sequence scan, still I am not getting the > > error > > in the session-2 for update

Re: [HACKERS] Setting pd_lower in GIN metapage

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Amit Langote wrote: >> Except that small thing, the patches do their duty. > > Thanks, revised patches attached. Cool, let's switch it back to a ready for committer status then. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] visual studio 2017 build support

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Andrew Dunstan < andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On 09/25/2017 12:25 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > > > > Thanks for pointing it out, I missed to check the Build tools support > > section. > > Here I attached the updated patch with the change in

Re: [HACKERS] Built-in plugin for logical decoding output

On 26 September 2017 at 14:08, Alvaro Hernandez wrote: > >> > OK, let me try to do that. I believe data integration is a priority. Definitely agree so far. > - If you want to develop your own output plugin, then your market is > reduced as you have to exclude all the

Re: [HACKERS] Setting pd_lower in GIN metapage

On 2017/09/26 12:17, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Amit Langote wrote: >> So, ISTM, comments that the patches add should all say that setting the >> meta pages' pd_lower to the correct value helps to pass those pages to >> xlog.c as compressible standard layout pages,

Re: [HACKERS] Enhancements to passwordcheck

Nathan Bossart wrote: >>> passwordcheck.force_new_password >>> >> Does it mean a password different from the old one? +1. It could be >> different from the last 3 passwords but we don't store a password >> history. > > Yes. As Michael pointed out, this might be better to do as a separate

Re: [HACKERS] tablespaces inside $PGDATA considered harmful

On 29/04/15 09:35, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 01:05:03PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: This way, both pg_dump and pg_upgrade will issue warnings, though, of course, those warnings can be ignored. I am hopeful these two warnings will be sufficient and we will not need make

Re: [HACKERS] Built-in plugin for logical decoding output

On 26 September 2017 at 15:26, Alvaro Hernandez wrote: > > That's better than nothing. But as much as interoperable json may be, > people still need to talk the (binary) replication protocol to use it. > No, they don't. They can use the SQL interface to logical decoding.

Re: [HACKERS] Optimise default partition scanning while adding new partition

On 2017/09/16 1:57, Amit Langote wrote: > On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 12:59 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> I believe the intended advantage of the current system is that if you >> specify multiple operations in a single ALTER TABLE command, you only >> do one scan rather than having

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication and statistics

2017-09-26 11:51 GMT+02:00 Masahiko Sawada : > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:50 AM, Pavel Stehule > wrote: > > > > > > 2017-09-25 19:23 GMT+02:00 Petr Jelinek : > >> > >> On 25/09/17 19:19, Tom Lane wrote: > >> > Pavel

Re: [HACKERS] Built-in plugin for logical decoding output

On 26/09/17 09:26, Alvaro Hernandez wrote: > On 26/09/17 10:03, Craig Ringer wrote: >> On 26 September 2017 at 14:08, Alvaro Hernandez > > wrote: >> - If you stick to in-core plugins, then you need to support at >> least three different output

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication and statistics

2017-09-26 11:56 GMT+02:00 Pavel Stehule : > > > 2017-09-26 11:51 GMT+02:00 Masahiko Sawada : > >> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:50 AM, Pavel Stehule >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > 2017-09-25 19:23 GMT+02:00 Petr Jelinek

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication and statistics

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 6:57 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > 2017-09-26 11:56 GMT+02:00 Pavel Stehule : >> >> >> >> 2017-09-26 11:51 GMT+02:00 Masahiko Sawada : >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:50 AM, Pavel Stehule

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication and statistics

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:50 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > 2017-09-25 19:23 GMT+02:00 Petr Jelinek : >> >> On 25/09/17 19:19, Tom Lane wrote: >> > Pavel Stehule writes: >> >> I had two instances on one server with

Re: [HACKERS] make async slave to wait for lsn to be replayed

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:00 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 22 March 2017 at 01:17, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Thomas Munro >> wrote: >> > Maybe someone can think of a clever way for an

Re: [HACKERS] Improve catcache/syscache performance.

On 09/22/2017 11:45 AM, Andres Freund wrote: Here's a variant that cleans up the previous changes a bit, and adds some further improvements: I tested with different pgbench options with master v/s patch and found an improvement. I have applied 001 and 003 patch on PG Head ,patch 0002 was

Re: [HACKERS] Improve catcache/syscache performance.

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2017-09-20 18:26:50 +0530, amul sul wrote: > > Patch 0007: > > Other than these concern, patch looks pretty reasonable to me. > > I'd appreciate if you could have a look at the new version as well. > > ​I

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw: evaluate placeholdervars on remote server

On 2017/09/16 0:19, Robert Haas wrote: On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: Have you had a chance to look at this such that we can expect a rebased version of this patch during the commitfest? Frankly, I think things where there was a ping multiple

Re: [HACKERS] Multicolumn hash indexes

Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 7:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> It's not simple, particularly not if you wish that the index would support >> queries specifying conditions for just a subset of the indexed columns >> (an assumption that's

Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

Hi Jesper. Firstly, thanks for looking at the patch. On 2017/09/26 22:00, Jesper Pedersen wrote: > Hi Amit, > > On 09/15/2017 04:50 AM, Amit Langote wrote: >> On 2017/09/15 11:16, Amit Langote wrote: >>> I will post rebased patches later today, although I think the overall >>> design of the

  1   2   >